Wednesday, February 25, 2026- President Donald Trump’s latest global import tariffs, enacted this week under a rarely used provision of the 1974 Trade Act, are already drawing serious legal scrutiny from economists, trade experts, and major corporations — even as the clock ticks on their limited duration.
This new tariff structure, which includes a 10% levy raised toward 15%, was introduced immediately after the U.S. Supreme Court struck down earlier emergency tariffs under a different law, prompting the administration to pivot legal strategies in an attempt to keep trade restrictions in place. Critics assert there is no real international financial emergency justifying the move, raising fundamental questions about the president’s authority to use this statute for broad tariff powers.
The legal landscape surrounding the tariffs is highly uncertain and time‑sensitive. Section 122 of the Trade Act allows temporary duties for up to 150 days, but the administration’s own lawyers previously argued this statutory authority did not apply to these tariffs — a contradiction that legal observers say could open the door for swift court challenges.
Many of the same voices that successfully challenged the earlier tariffs argue there’s a strong case for the new measures to be struck down as well, pointing out that the justifications offered by the White House focus on trade deficits rather than the serious balance‑ofpayments crisis the law contemplates.
Major importers and business groups are already gearing up for battles in federal courts, seeking refunds and challenging the legal basis for the tariffs amid growing economic uncertainty.
The compressed timeline — with litigation likely to outlast the statutory 150‑day window — means judges could be forced to rule before the duties expire, potentially unraveling the policy mid‑course. With businesses, consumers, and global trading partners all watching closely, the outcome may not only determine the fate of these tariffs but also set important precedents for executive authority over trade policy in the future.
0 Comments